The proposed mosque by ISBR sparked significant public commentary and debate. Residents expressed a mix of opposition and support, reflecting deep community divisions. Concerns were raised about the mosque’s impact on the area’s character, safety, and environment. One resident argued that the presence of 107 cars and the associated noise would disrupt the neighborhood’s tranquility, particularly during early morning and late evening hours. They emphasized the site’s unsuitability for a large facility, given its proximity to a historical district and the existing rural environment.

Contrastingly, some community members supported the mosque, citing religious freedom and community diversity. Alex Marcus, a local resident, argued that denying a house of worship interferes with religious rights and that the mosque’s traffic impact would be manageable compared to local schools. Marcus emphasized ISBR’s responsiveness to neighborhood concerns and suggested that fears about attendance and traffic could be exaggerated.

However, other residents continued to voice apprehensions about noise, traffic, and fire safety. Wayey Zhou highlighted potential fire safety issues due to the mosque’s proximity to the Liberty Corner Firehouse. Zhou urged the planning board to consider the community’s well-being over zoning laws, questioning the appropriateness of constructing such a large facility in a residential area.

Environmental concerns further fueled the debate. Residents pointed to the project’s potential impact on wetlands, drainage, and wildlife. Mrs. Quick, a resident, raised questions about the ecological disruption from the proposed development and the adequacy of the site’s drainage and lighting plans. She noted the presence of wildlife and hunting activities in the area, arguing that the development would intrude upon the neighborhood’s rural character.

Legal and procedural aspects also played a role in the discussions. The board emphasized the need for public comments to be sworn testimony, subject to cross-examination, and relevant to the application. This procedural rigor aimed to maintain order during the heated exchanges and ensure that testimonies were substantiated.

Another major topic was the township’s obligations concerning affordable housing. The planning board discussed the complexities of complying with evolving regulations and court mandates. A board attorney explained the history of affordable housing rules and the need to revise the township’s housing plan element and fair share plan. Recent court rulings invalidated certain methodologies, necessitating a reevaluation of the township’s housing strategy.

The board explored various strategies to meet affordable housing obligations. These included the introduction of accessory apartments and a market-to-affordable approach, which would allow the municipality to acquire and resell reasonably priced housing stock as affordable units.

Concerns were raised about the variability in affordable housing calculations provided by different experts. The board noted the importance of setting a public hearing date to adopt the proposed amended housing element fair share plan. This plan would need to be on file by a specified date to comply with legal requirements.